(February 16, 2012 at 9:56 am)LastPoet Wrote: I, for this, hate what was done to philosophy.
It's junk philosophy in the same way that ID is junk science. Whenever you start with the desired conclusion and then try to find reasons to believe it, you're going to produce garbage regardless of whether your posing as a scientist or a philosopher.
My question relates to my post on the pre-failure of apologetics. My argument is that even if all these theoretical models and conjecture were logically sound, you'd still not be able to meet the burden of proof proportional to the extraordinary claims. The burden is going to be very heavy and needs hard evidence to support it. Conjecture and blah blah blah isn't going to cut it.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
